This Court does not find any error in the Order dated 1st November, 2013, whereby the right of residence was granted in favour of the Respondent: High Court Of Delhi
This Court does not find any error in the Order dated 1st November, 2013, whereby the right of residence was granted in favour of the Respondent was upheld by the High Court Of Delhi through the learned bench led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH in the case of OM PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. Vs ANJANI GUPTA & ANR. (CRL.M.C. 5188/2013) on 8th March, 2022.
Brief facts of the case are that Marriage between the Respondent No.1 (hereinafter “Respondent”) and the son of the Petitioners, Mr. Alok Gupta, was solemnized on 30th January, 1990 according to Hindu rites. The relationship between the Respondent and her in-laws was cordial in the beginning, however, it started to deteriorate with time. The Respondent left her matrimonial home on 16 th September, 2011. Consequently, more than 50 cases, both civil and criminal, were filed by the parties against each other.
On 11th December, 2013, the Petitioners obtained ex-parte ad interim stay from a co-ordinate bench of this Court, with respect to the right of residence passed in favour of the Respondent, which was extended on the various subsequent dates.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court wrongly upheld the Order of the learned Trial Court dated 1st November, 2013, whereby the right of residence was granted to the Respondent herein. the Respondent left her matrimonial home, on her own accord and did not return thereafter. However, she filed for the right to residence with respect to the property bearing no. A-41, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi-110092, during the DV Act proceedings. The said premises were in the name of the wife (since deceased) and son of the Petitioner and the Respondent has no reason to claim the right in the said property. On several occasions the Petitioners have offered options of alternative accommodation to the Respondent, however, neither of these offers had ever been accepted by the Respondent.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that property bearing no. A-41, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi-110092, is the matrimonial home of the Respondent and she has been rightfully entitled to residence in the said property by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
The Court observed ”this Court does not find any error in the Order dated 1st November, 2013, whereby the right of residence was granted in favour of the Respondent, as well as in the Order dated 5th December, 2013 upholding the Order dated 1st November, 2013. Accordingly, the instant petition against Order dated 5th December, 2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02/Special Judge (NDPS), East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 104/13 is dismissed.”
Click here to read the Judgement
Written by- Riya Singh, Legal Intern, Prime Legal